DOCSLIB.ORG

The Air Superiority Fighter and Defense Transformation Why DOD Requirements Demand the F/A-22 Raptor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Air Superiority Fighter and Defense Transformation Why DOD Requirements Demand the F/A-22 Raptor AIR WAR COLLEGE AIR UNIVERSITY The Air Superiority Fighter and Defense Transformation Why DOD Requirements Demand the F/A-22 Raptor DEVIN L. CATE Lieutenant Colonel, USAF Air War College Maxwell Paper No. 30 Air University Press Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama June 2003 Air University Donald A. Lamontagne, Lt Gen, Commander Air War College Bentley B. Rayburn, Maj Gen, Commandant A. J. Torres, PhD, Dean Lawrence E. Grinter, PhD, Series Editor Joseph F. Cheney, Col, Essay Advisor Air University Press Shirley B. Laseter, DPA, Director Thomas Lobenstein, Content Editor Sherry C. Terrell, Copy Editor Mary Ferguson, Prepress Production Daniel Armstrong, Cover Design Please send inquiries or comments to Editor The Maxwell Papers Air War College 325 Chennault Circle, Bldg. 1401 Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6427 Tel: (334) 953-7074 Fax: (334) 953-1988 E-mail: [email protected] This Maxwell Paper and others in the series are avail- able electronically at the Air University Research Web site http://research.maxwell.af.mil and the AU Press Web site http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil. Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Air Uni- versity, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited. ii Foreword In this paper, Lt Col Devin L. Cate tackles the question of whether an air superiority fighter is relevant to warfare in the twenty-first century. Critics of the F/A-22, the US Air Force’s next generation air superiority fighter, have identi- fied it as a cold war relic—unjustifiably expensive and out of step with the Department of Defense (DOD) transformation. Colonel Cate argues that the six operational goals of the DOD transformation, as defined in the Quadrennial Defense Review Report (QDR) of 2001, actually demand a highly ca- pable air superiority fighter. He shows how achieving these transformational operational goals requires performance of the four offensive counterair functions of surface attack, fighter sweep, escort, and suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD), as well as defensive counterair. He demonstrates that only an air superiority fighter can efficiently and effec- tively satisfy all these functions. Colonel Cate then identifies the operational requirements for an air superiority fighter to adequately contribute to the operational goals of the transformation. These requirements are superlative air-to-air and air-to-ground performance, survivability against modern air defense systems, and a ca- pable sensor suite that allows the fighter to be a sensor- shooter and participate in the joint data network. Finally, Colonel Cate assesses the leading candidates for a twenty- first century fighter—the F-15C/E, F/A-22, F-35A, uninhab- ited combat aerial vehicle (UCAV), and the common aero- space vehicle (CAV)—against these requirements. The proliferation of advanced air defense capabilities during the next few years will seriously challenge the suitability of the aging F-15C/E as an air superiority fighter. He notes that while the UCAV holds long-term promise an air superiority platform, we still have much to do in developing its capabil- ity and the doctrine, tactics, and training to employ the UCAV in the air-to-air mission, especially against manned air-to-air threats in close engagements. Consequently, Colonel Cate concludes the F/A-22 is the only fighter that will meet all the requirements for a transformational air su- periority fighter by 2007. iii This paper provides rich material for discussion not only about the role of the air superiority fighter in the twenty-first century but also concerning the nature of defense transfor- mation itself. As with all Maxwell Papers, we encourage dis- cussion and debate of Colonel Cate’s important paper. BENTLEY B. RAYBURN Major General, USAF Commandant, Air War College iv About the Author Lt Col Devin L. Cate is a student at the Air War College located at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. He has served tours as a physicist, flight test engineer, and staff officer on the Air Force Secretariat and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) staffs. He has participated in a diverse number of research, development, test, and engineering ef- forts, including the ground-based laser space segment of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and the F-117A Nighthawk. Colonel Cate led the Air Force’s Red Teams for counter-precision-guided munitions and directed-energy programs, including the airborne laser. At OSD, he served as the program director for the national low-observable (LO) and counter low-observable (CLO) programs, author- ing Department of Defense policy for management of the LO and CLO programs, including export policy. Colonel Cate’s awards include the R. L. Jones Award for being the top engineer graduate of the US Air Force Test Pilot School. He is a distinguished graduate of the Squadron Officer School and Air Command and Staff College. Colonel Cate holds a bachelor of science degree in physics from the US Air Force Academy and, as a recipient of the Boeing Fel- lowship, he also earned a master of science degree in aero- nautics and astronautics from the University of Washing- ton. Additionally, Colonel Cate has published papers on laser optics, adaptive control, and prototyping. v The Air Superiority Fighter and Defense Transformation Why DOD Requirements Demand the F/A-22 Raptor The end of the cold war and the beginnings of a transfor- mation of this country’s national defense forces have led some to question the need for a new air superiority fighter, specifically challenging the continuation of the F/A-22 pro- gram.1 The requirement for air superiority has been an ac- cepted tenet of US doctrine since the War Department pub- lished Field Manual (FM) 100-20, Command and Employment of Air Power, in 1943.2 Given the recent changes to the strate- gic environment that underpin the current transformation of Department of Defense (DOD), is there still a need for the tra- ditional air superiority fighter? A careful reading of the opera- tional goals of the transformation of DOD as codified in Qua- drennial Defense Review (QDR)-01 demonstrates that this transformation cannot be accomplished without a new air superiority fighter. This new fighter must exhibit dominance in air-to-air engagements, have significant air-to-ground ca- pability, survive against a sophisticated surface-to-air mis- sile (SAM) threat, and serve as sensor and shooter in the joint data network (JDN). The options for fielding a new air supe- riority fighter include an upgraded F-15C/E, the F/A-22, the F-35A, the uninhabited combat aerial vehicle (UCAV), and the common aerospace vehicle (CAV). Only the F/A-22 can meet the emerging needs of the air superiority task in the coming decades. In the longer term, other options hold some promise. Air Superiority Defined Air superiority and its enabling complement, counterair operations, are defined in joint doctrine. Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, defines air superiority as “that degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another which permits the conduct of operations by the former and its re- lated land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place with- out prohibitive interference by the opposing force.”3 Counter- 1 2 AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER air “integrates offensive and defensive operations to attain and maintain a desired degree of air superiority. Counterair missions are designed to destroy or negate enemy aircraft and missiles, both before and after launch.”4 Air superiority, then, is the degree to which a force has attained freedom to conduct joint operations by dominating the air. Counterair operations are the means of achieving air superiority. Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 2-1.1, Counterair Operations, describes air superiority as a core competency of the United States Air Force (USAF) and asserts that it “is normally the first priority of US forces whenever the enemy possesses air and missile assets capable of threatening friendly forces or inhibiting their ability to use the air and space medium to apply force.”5 According to AFDD 2-1.1, “any action taken to achieve the effect of dominance above the Earth’s surface yet within the atmosphere fits into counterair operations.”6 AFDD 2-1.1 maintains that counter- air operations not only include air attack but also infor- mation attack, surface attack, or space-based attack—as long as the effect is air superiority.7 There are two types of counterair operations: offensive and defensive. Offensive counterair (OCA) operations de- stroy, disrupt, or degrade enemy air and missile threats, with the goal of defeating these threats at their origin. OCA reduces the enemy air threat and frees friendly forces to use airspace for their own purposes, including other air operations.8 Defensive counterair (DCA) is defense of friendly forces from enemy air and missile attacks. The spectrum of DCA ranges from active air defense designed to destroy incoming air and missile threats to passive measures intended to reduce the effectiveness of these threats.9 Because the focus here is the air superiority fighter, the discussion that follows concentrates on its roles in OCA and DCA. The primary reference is to AFDD 2-1.1 for OCA and DCA discussions since it is more de- tailed and recent than JP 3-01, Joint Doctrine for Counter- ing Air
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lightweight Fighter Aircraft Program
    / C '3 3 'GOVERNMENT Senate Hearing^ Storage Before the Committee on Appro priation s Y)t )C U M r HTS -------- -------------- L ig h tw e ig h t F ig h te r A ir c ra ft P ro g ra m . T 0 7 6 MAY 1 ? 1975 t h ^ ta« un^ X s,ty KANSA o Lightweight Fighter Aircraft Program m in H < —'— J- □ " 1 □ IT Fis ca l Y ear 1976 H H < 94“ CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION LIGHTWEIGHT FIGH TER AIRC RA FT PROGRAM H E A R IN G BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE NIN ETY-F OURTH CONGRESS F IR ST SE SS IO N Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 52-600 0 WASHINGTON : 1975 SU BC OM MITTE E OF THE CO MMIT TE E ON APP ROPR IA TIO NS JO HN L. McC LE LL AN , A rk an sa s, C hair m an JO HN C. ST EN NIS , Mississ ippi MILTO N R. YOUNG, Nor th Dak ot a JO HN O. PA ST OR E, Rhode Island ROMAN L. HR US KA , Neb ra sk a WA RREN G. MAGNUSON, W as hing ton CL IF FO RD I’. CA SE, New Je rs ey MIK E MANS FIEL D, M on tana HIRA M L. FON G, Haw aii GALE W. Mc GE E, Wyomi ng TE D ST EV EN S, Alaska WILL IAM I’ROX MIRE, Wisco nsin RICH AR D S.
    [Show full text]
  • F—18 Navy Air Combat Fighter
    74 /2 >Af ^y - Senate H e a r tn ^ f^ n 12]$ Before the Committee on Appro priations (,() \ ER WIIA Storage ime nts F EB 1 2 « T H e -,M<rUN‘U«sni KAN S A S S F—18 Na vy Air Com bat Fighter Fiscal Year 1976 th CONGRESS, FIRS T SES SION H .R . 986 1 SPECIAL HEARING F - 1 8 NA VY AIR CO MBA T FIG H TER HEARING BEFORE A SUBC OMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE NIN ETY-FOURTH CONGRESS FIR ST SE SS IO N ON H .R . 9 8 6 1 AN ACT MAKIN G APP ROPR IA TIO NS FO R THE DEP ARTM EN T OF D EFEN SE FO R T H E FI SC AL YEA R EN DI NG JU N E 30, 1976, AND TH E PE RIO D BE GIN NIN G JU LY 1, 1976, AN D EN DI NG SEPT EM BER 30, 1976, AND FO R OTH ER PU RP OSE S P ri nte d fo r th e use of th e Com mittee on App ro pr ia tio ns SPECIAL HEARING U.S. GOVERNM ENT PRINT ING OFF ICE 60-913 O WASHINGTON : 1976 SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Ark ans as, Chairman JOH N C. ST ENN IS, Mississippi MILTON R. YOUNG, No rth D ako ta JOH N O. P ASTORE, Rhode Island ROMAN L. HRUSKA, N ebraska WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washin gton CLIFFORD I’. CASE, New Je rse y MIK E MANSFIEL D, Montana HIRAM L.
    [Show full text]
  • © Osprey Publishing • © Osprey Publishing • HITLER’S EAGLES
    www.ospreypublishing.com © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com HITLER’S EAGLES THE LUFTWAFFE 1933–45 Chris McNab © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com CONTENTS Introduction 6 The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe 10 Luftwaffe – Organization and Manpower 56 Bombers – Strategic Reach 120 Fighters – Sky Warriors 174 Ground Attack – Strike from Above 238 Sea Eagles – Maritime Operations 292 Ground Forces – Eagles on the Land 340 Conclusion 382 Further Reading 387 Index 390 © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com INTRODUCTION A force of Heinkel He 111s near their target over England during the summer of 1940. Once deprived of their Bf 109 escorts, the German bombers were acutely vulnerable to the predations of British Spitfires and Hurricanes. © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com he story of the German Luftwaffe (Air Force) has been an abiding focus of military Thistorians since the end of World War II in 1945. It is not difficult to see why. Like many aspects of the German war machine, the Luftwaffe was a crowning achievement of the German rearmament programme. During the 1920s and early 1930s, the air force was a shadowy organization, operating furtively under the tight restrictions on military development imposed by the Versailles Treaty. Yet through foreign-based aircraft design agencies, civilian air transport and nationalistic gliding clubs, the seeds of a future air force were nevertheless kept alive and growing in Hitler’s new Germany, and would eventually emerge in the formation of the Luftwaffe itself in 1935. The nascent Luftwaffe thereafter grew rapidly, its ranks of both men and aircraft swelling under the ambition of its commander-in-chief, Hermann Göring.
    [Show full text]
  • Gallery of USAF Weapons Note: Inventory Numbers Are Total Active Inventory Figures As of Sept
    Gallery of USAF Weapons Note: Inventory numbers are total active inventory figures as of Sept. 30, 2015. By Aaron M. U. Church, Senior Editor ■ 2016 USAF Almanac BOMBER AIRCRAFT B-1 Lancer Brief: Long-range bomber capable of penetrating enemy defenses and de- livering the largest weapon load of any aircraft in the inventory. COMMENTARY The B-1A was initially proposed as replacement for the B-52, and four proto- types were developed and tested before program cancellation in 1977. The program was revived in 1981 as B-1B. The vastly upgraded aircraft added 74,000 lb of usable payload, improved radar, and reduced radar cross section, but cut maximum speed to Mach 1.2. The B-1B first saw combat in Iraq during Desert Fox in December 1998. Its three internal weapons bays accommodate a substantial payload of weapons, including a mix of different weapons in each bay. Lancer production totaled 100 aircraft. The bomber’s blended wing/ body configuration, variable-geometry design, and turbofan engines provide long range and loiter time. The B-1B has been upgraded with GPS, smart weapons, and mission systems. Offensive avionics include SAR for tracking, B-2A Spirit (SSgt. Jeremy M. Wilson) targeting, and engaging moving vehicles and terrain following. GPS-aided INS lets aircrews autonomously navigate without ground-based navigation aids Dimensions: Span 137 ft (spread forward) to 79 ft (swept aft), length 146 and precisely engage targets. Sniper pod was added in 2008. The ongoing ft, height 34 ft. integrated battle station modifications is the most comprehensive refresh in Weight: Max T-O 477,000 lb.
    [Show full text]
  • The Implications of Fifth-Generation Aircraft for Transatlantic Airpower a Primer
    The Implications of Fifth-Generation Aircraft for Transatlantic Airpower A Primer Secretary Deborah Lee James and Dr. Daniel Gouré The Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security works to develop sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the United States and the world. The Center honors General Brent Scowcroft’s legacy of service and embodies his ethos of nonpartisan commitment to the cause of security, support for US leadership in cooperation with allies and partners, and dedication to the mentorship of the next generation of leaders. The Scowcroft Center’s Transatlantic Security Initiative brings together top policymakers, government and military officials, business leaders, and experts from Europe and North America to share insights, strengthen cooperation, and develop innovative approaches to the key challenges facing NATO and the transatlantic community. This publication was produced under the auspices of a project conducted in partnership with Lockheed Martin focused on the transatlantic air domain. The Implications of Fifth-Generation Aircraft for Transatlantic Airpower A Primer Secretary Deborah Lee James and Dr. Daniel Gouré ISBN-13: 978-1-61977-602-9 Cover: F-35A Lightning II fighter jets from the 388th Fighter Wing at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, fly in formation over the Utah Test and Training Range. (U.S. Air Force photo/R. Nial Bradshaw) This report is written and published in accordance with the Atlantic Council Policy on Intellectual Independence. The authors are solely responsible for its analysis and recommendations. The Atlantic Council and its donors do not determine, nor do they necessarily endorse or advocate for, any of this report’s conclusions.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in Air-To-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
    TRENDS IN AIR-TO-AIR COMBAT IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE AIR SUPERIORITY JOHN STILLION TRENDS IN AIR-TO-AIR COMBAT IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE AIR SUPERIORITY JOHN STILLION 2015 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2015 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHOR John Stillion is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Dr. Stillion is a former U.S. Air Force officer, instructor navigator, and tactical aviator. He is a Distinguished Graduate of Air Force ROTC, USAF Navigator Training, and RF-4C Tactical Aircrew Training. He previously worked at the RAND Corporation where he led multi-disciplinary study teams and analyzed a wide range of issues related to airpower and future warfare, including air operations in urban environments and against elusive targets, airbase vulnerability, combat aircrew skill acquisition and retention, tanker and airlift operations, aerial ISR, and fire support to Special Operations Forces. During his time at RAND he received a number of awards for the quality of his research. Prior to joining CSBA Dr. Stillion was a Senior Analyst in the aerospace industry where he analyzed the cost-effectiveness of existing and possible future products as well as the emerging demand for advanced capabilities and production techniques.
    [Show full text]
  • Fighter Aircraft
    NEI b I .r.7 FIGHTE] AIR RAFT ..:, I c .:{ ii o Report of the DefenseScien ce Boafd rce -L at) FO rr p( € oc) :1,'::',;j a o(d o6q a o- t (n oo aE O r-r \+{ o Volume o> o BASICREPORT it{+!r!!q# ]J H fiJ gE Ai . ri :.1 +J(d _ l' : : , t{d ," aua nii xv o M, I Mqy I968 .B >d B'v <(, I M.1 ^,F- t1* 4g ^, ?t3r-. I t{l 6b trt \o "" -(Jo o'. *..-- H H 1/') t'r O > t- 3' ln oddition lo securily requirementsthot opply to this documentond mu$Ae compliedwith, eoch rionsrittol outside the Deportmentof Defensemust h\e @ the prior opprovolof the Office o{ the Director of DefenseReseorch ond Ergineering \o t-r -.44 ro GROUP rrrifrIf .:#ftHF, Downgraded at 3-y rrLl{ltr\LFT declassified afte tt:t-,c',#o€oK6 r,5r4DL_ nc4-1iAti!i$.P.+ FIGHTER ATRCRAFT Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force Volume II: Basic Report I May 1958 l I I I ' r ,;r;.lj 'a:. !,q I I I This document contains information affecting the national defense of the United States with_ !1the meaning of the EspionageLaws, Tiile 18,U. S.C. , Sections?93 and ?94. The trans- mission or the revelation of its contents in any manner to an unauthorized person is prohibited by taw. Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering Washington, D. C. --ltt ' -.-, ,-.-.-. Ii. i SEER.ET lllt$Lhsruttll MEMBERSHIP of *:tl!&ii&ri{* DEF'ENSE SCIENCE BOARD TASK FORCE on FIGHTER AIRCRAF'T Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defense of Fighters
    Those who think fighters are finished do not understand basic operational requirements of war. In USAF photo by TSgt. Jack Braden Defense of Fighters By Rebecca Grant HE fighter force is under attack. Big price tags for new acquisition plus the claim that the demand for fighters is based on old requirements have Tspawned doubts about the current and future role of fighters in air and space power. Earlier this year, for example, the New York Times pointed out in an editorial that the Air Force “remains committed to the F-22,” then referred to the Raptor as “a short-range tactical fighter designed for Cold War dogfights.” The newspaper suggested that “Air Force dollars should go to unmanned reconnaissance and attack craft like the Predator, long-range bombers, and the troop transport planes that are in chronic short supply.” Another defense critic, Lawrence J. Korb of the Council on Foreign Relations, argues the Pentagon should be spending money on “true” transformational systems such as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles that were used so successfully in Afghanistan. More significant were reports in May that a draft of the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guidance for Fiscal 40 AIR FORCE Magazine / July 2002 2004 and beyond called for re- precision weapons, the potential of fighters came to dominate the force evaluating the F-22 program. Spe- UAVs, long-range bombers, and fu- structure. In the 1970s, technology cifically, it called for a study of the ture space systems. development feeding on the lessons impact of buying only 180 new F-22 Scratch the surface of the fighter of Vietnam produced the F-15 as a air dominance fighters, rather than debate and one of the first problems true air superiority fighter.
    [Show full text]
  • Messerschmitt Me 262 a Schwalbe Free
    FREE MESSERSCHMITT ME 262 A SCHWALBE PDF Robert Peczkowski | 128 pages | 19 Jun 2014 | Mushroom Model Publications | 9788363678173 | English | Sandomierz, Poland The Messerschmitt Me Jet Fighter | Defense Media Network By Robert Messerschmitt Me 262 A Schwalbe. Dorr - July 6, An Me reproduction in flight at an air show. The only flying Me s are replicas that use modern, and safer, jet engines. Photo by Matthias Kabel. Its pilots — intrepid men all, for the Me was cantankerous and dangerous to fly — claimed allied warplanes shot down while sustaining just combat losses. The Me did take a toll from its adversaries. Luftwaffe ace Hauptmann Capt. Franz Schall was credited with 17 aerial victories, including six four-engine bombers and ten P Mustangs. An engineless Me captured at an airfield in the area of Frankfurt. Lack of engines was a major obstacle to fielding more Messerschmitt Me 262 A Schwalbe s. Next to the plane is ammunition for the Mk cannon. Army photo. Generalleutnant Maj. Based on design work that began in and first flown on April 18,initially with a piston engine, the Me evolved into a turbojet fighter with slatted, partially swept wings, tricycle landing gear, and a variety of armament configurations. In most versions, it carried heavy cannon, and all variants used low-pressure tires to allow operation from grass airstrips. It became a formidable weapon in the hands of Messerschmitt Me 262 A Schwalbe exceedingly skilled pilot, but the Me was prone to engine failures, and its landing gear frequently Messerschmitt Me 262 A Schwalbe. Valmore P. Beaudrault shot down an Me on Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: a Technical Analysis Abhijit Iyer-Mitra and Pushan Das
    ORF ISSUE BRIEF SEPTEMBER 2015 ISSUE BRIEF # 105 The Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: A Technical Analysis Abhijit Iyer-Mitra and Pushan Das Introduction he Indian Air Force's global tender to buy 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) has been cancelled1 and instead, a limited purchase of 36 Dassault Rafales is being negotiated without the transfer of technology2 and local production envisaged in the original T3 tender. Meanwhile, the fighter strength of the Indian Air Force (IAF) is diminishing rapidly due to obsolescence.4 The IAF operates a wide variety of aircraft which significantly complicates its logistics, training, budgets, and force synergy. The acquisition of just two squadrons of Rafales is hardly enough to overcome the numbers crunch. The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), an aviation research arm of the Defence Ministry, however, believes its Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) may just be the answer that the IAF is looking for. The AMCA programme, though still in its design and development phase, is believed by the ADA to hold immense potential to replace a wide range of IAF aircraft while bringing quantum changes to fielded capability as the aircraft will be a generation ahead of what the IAF currently fields, or is considering. The indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), which the ADA has been developing over the last 30-odd years, has created an aeronautic ecosystem for the AMCA programme. ADA officials believe that if the IAF were to throw its weight behind the AMCA programme, it would result in a shift from short-term tactical thinking to a more long-term strategic view, keeping pace with technological developments and meeting future threats.
    [Show full text]
  • The F-100 Super Sabre As an Air Superiority Fighter
    SPRING 2020 - Volume 67, Number 1 WWW.AFHISTORY.ORG know the past .....Shape the Future The Air Force Historical Foundation Founded on May 27, 1953 by Gen Carl A. “Tooey” Spaatz MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS and other air power pioneers, the Air Force Historical All members receive our exciting and informative Foundation (AFHF) is a nonprofi t tax exempt organization. Air Power History Journal, either electronically or It is dedicated to the preservation, perpetuation and on paper, covering: all aspects of aerospace history appropriate publication of the history and traditions of American aviation, with emphasis on the U.S. Air Force, its • Chronicles the great campaigns and predecessor organizations, and the men and women whose the great leaders lives and dreams were devoted to fl ight. The Foundation • Eyewitness accounts and historical articles serves all components of the United States Air Force— Active, Reserve and Air National Guard. • In depth resources to museums and activities, to keep members connected to the latest and AFHF strives to make available to the public and greatest events. today’s government planners and decision makers information that is relevant and informative about Preserve the legacy, stay connected: all aspects of air and space power. By doing so, the • Membership helps preserve the legacy of current Foundation hopes to assure the nation profi ts from past and future US air force personnel. experiences as it helps keep the U.S. Air Force the most modern and effective military force in the world. • Provides reliable and accurate accounts of historical events. The Foundation’s four primary activities include a quarterly journal Air Power History, a book program, a • Establish connections between generations.
    [Show full text]
  • Control of the Air: the Enduring Requirement
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln U.S. Air Force Research U.S. Department of Defense 1999 Control of the Air: The Enduring Requirement Richard P. Hallion SES Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usafresearch Part of the Aerospace Engineering Commons Hallion, Richard P., "Control of the Air: The Enduring Requirement" (1999). U.S. Air Force Research. 5. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usafresearch/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Defense at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in U.S. Air Force Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. CONTROL OF THE AIR: THE ENDURING REQUIREMENT By Dr. Richard P. Hallion, SES Air Force History and Museums Program Bolling AFB, DC 20332-1111 September 8, 1999 1 Contents I. Control of the Air, The Three Freedoms, and the Spectrum of Air Warfare 4 II. Air Superiority: The Danger of Illusory Dominance 8 III. Air Supremacy: Dominant Air Warfare With Decisive Results 22 IV. How Control of the Air Can Be--and Sometimes Has Been--Lost 50 V. Implications for the Future of American Air Supremacy 64 Source Notes 68 2 3 I. Control of the Air, the Three Freedoms, and the Spectrum of Air Warfare Throughout the military history of the twentieth century, the role of aerospace forces has become more predominant. Today, wars typically start, are prosecuted, and reach their decisive culminating point--whether surrender of a foe, agreement to a cease- fire, or the ceasing of combat operations--thanks to air action.
    [Show full text]